ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 148643. August 22, 2001]

ANDRES MAMANTEO, SR. vs. DIVINA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2001 .

G.R. No. 148643(Andres Mamanteo, Sr. vs. Hon. Robert T. Cawed, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Baguio City, Pedro Blanco and Emily Lourdes Divina.)

In this petition for review on certiorari, Andres Mamanteo, Sr., petitioner, assails the Decision dated February 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated June 7, 2001 denying his motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are:

On June 1, 1993, Emily Lourdes Divina filed with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 4, a complaint for "annulment of waiver of rights and tax declaration, recovery of possession and damages" against Pedro Blanco and Andres Mamanteo, Sr..

Pending resolution of the complaint, the parties, on May 19, 1998. entered into a compromise agreement approved by the court a quo on May 25, 1998. Paragraph 5 provides:

"5. That the amount of P450,000.00 shall be paid to Andres within six (6) months from the signing hereof at which time, the latter (shall) deliver possession of the first floor of the subject property to the above-named common children free of charge except for the light and water that they consume; (Underscoring supplied.)

On January 13, 1999, pursuant to their agreement, Divina and Blanco consigned to the trial court P450,000.00 as full payment of their obligation. Despite this payment, Andres Mamanteo, Sr. failed to deliver to Divina and Blanco possession of the first floor of the subject property as agreed upon. This prompted Divina and Blanco to file with the lower court a motion for partial execution of the compromise judgment. Mamanteo, Sr. opposed the motion on the ground that movants failed to pay him P450,000.00 within the six-month period agreed upon which lapsed on November 19, 1998. He thus prayed that the compromise judgment be rescinded. Blanco countered saying that Mamanteo, Sr. refused to accept payment.

On March 8, 1999, the trial court issued an order granting Divina and Blanco's motion for partial execution. On June 1, 1999, the trial court issued the corresponding writ of execution ordering the delivery of the first floor of the subject property to the common children of Divina and Blanco.

Mamanteo, Sr. elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. On February 28, 2001, the appellate court denied his petition and motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

Mamanteo Sr. contends that when Divina and Blanco, respondents, failed to pay P450,000.00 on time or on November 19, 1998, the compromise agreement was deemed rescinded. Thus, there could be no partial execution of such compromise.

The petition lacks merit.

In dismissing the petition, ¹ Decision dated February 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals. the Court of Appeals held that default or failure to pay what is due under a judgment by compromise is not a ground for rescission.

We agree.

In Prudence Realty and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, ² 231 SCRA 379 (1994).this Court held:

When the terms of a compromise judgment are violated, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move for its execution, not its invalidation. In fact the court has inherent powers to prevent its decision from becoming a dead letter and may hold the judgment debtor in contempt if it finds the refusal to be malicious and systematic."

xxxx

"Habana admitted that what she really wanted was the recovery of the subject land, and she sought to achieve this by having the judgment rescinded on the ground of default of the Corporation. This however, is not one of the grounds recognized in xxx Art. 2038. The very nature of a compromise judgment bars default as a ground for rescission."

WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE